Conservative media have falsely suggested that Germany's fiscal austerity policies spurred that country's recent economic growth, at times arguing that the United States should therefore have cut spending instead of borrowing to stimulate the economy. In fact, Germany -- which launched stimulus spending and increased the deficit in response to the recession -- has not yet implemented its planned cuts, and economists say Germany's recent improvement is largely due to conditions favorable to its export-based economy.  

German economy saw record growth in second quarter

German economy took unexpectedly large upswing in second quarter of 2010. An August 13 Associated Press article reported that after a 4.9 percent downturn in the German economy in 2009, significant growth occurred in the first half of 2010. First-quarter growth of .5 percent was succeeded by second-quarter growth of 2.2 percent (an annual rate of almost 9 percent), which, according to the AP, is "the fastest pace since reunification two decades ago." Germany's federal statistical office credited foreign trade and spending by government and households, according to AP.

Conservatives suggest growth the result of spending cuts

Barnes: Germany "cut spending and cut their deficit" and got "9 percent growth." Discussing the economic recovery with host Bret Baier on the August 30 edition of Special Report, Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes attributed Germany's second-quarter growth to cutting "spending and ... their deficit." Barnes also stated:

BARNES: We know what Germany did. What Germany did was reduce their unemployment benefits for one thing; they cut spending and cut their deficit and they loosened up on the labor market -- on hiring and firing and so on -- which could be very strict in Europe.

And what happened? In the second quarter -- 9 percent growth. Unemployment is down to I think 7.6 percent. And compare that to the Obama administration that did the opposite of all of those things. And what do we get here -- 9.5 percent unemployment, 1.6 percent of growth.

NewsBusters: "Germany's fiscally responsible approach to the financial crisis has worked out much better than Obama's spending binge." In an August 29 post, NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard responded to Richard Haass' statement that Germany is "growing now, in part because they are carrying out economic policies of some responsibility and some restraint" by writing:

Indeed. As NewsBusters reported Friday, even New York Times columnist David Brooks understands that Germany's fiscally responsible approach to the financial crisis has worked out much better than Obama's spending binge.

Alas, folks like [Donna] Brazile, Paul Krugman, and Robert Reich are clinging to failed Depression Era policies that have never shown success whenever and wherever they've been tried.

Cavuto: Germany is "benefiting from cooling it on spending." On the August 13 edition of his Fox Business program (accessed via Nexis), Neil Cavuto said that France and Germany "apparently get capitalism and we do not" and claimed that they are "benefiting from cooling it on spending, and we're not benefiting because we haven't remotely cooled it on spending." After Cavuto noted that "German and French economic numbers out today look so good and ours still look so weak," Fox Business analyst Jonathan Hoenig stated that "big spending entitlement programs" can lead to "economic collapse," but since the announcement of "very painful austerity measures," the European economy and currency have "rallied."

Cato economist suggested Germany's "strict fiscal discipline" led to "robust" economic expansion. In a September 8 Wall Street Journal op-ed (subscription required), Cato Institute economist Lawrence H. White wrote that some Keynesian economists had criticized "what they regarded as Germany's overly strict fiscal discipline." White then wrote: "Yet Germany's real output expanded at a robust 9% annual rate in the second quarter, while the U.S. economy grew at an anemic 1.6% rate. So is Germany now a role model for how to recover?" In the rest of his op-ed, White detailed Germany's post-WWII price control deregulation and suggested that it is a "useful model" for current German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaüble, who is preoccupied with "the implications of excessive deficits and the dangers of high inflation."

But Germany has not yet implemented its austerity policies -- and it did use stimulus spending

Bloomberg: German austerity program begins in 2011. In an August 13 article, Bloomberg reported:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's Cabinet in June approved levies on banks, air travel and nuclear-power plants as part of what she called an "unprecedented" round of budget cuts, rejecting U.S. calls to spur growth. The program, a mixture of spending cuts and revenue-raising steps, amounts to 81.6 billion euros ($105.1 billion) from 2011 through 2014.

Krugman: "Germany's austerity policies have not yet begun." Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote in an August 24 blog post that it's "foolish" to hold "Germany up as proof that austerity is good," partly because "Germany's austerity policies have not yet begun -- up to this point they've actually been quite Keynesian."

Austerity program will include new taxes. Contrary to the suggestion that Germany's austerity measures only include spending cuts, The Wall Street Journal reported in a September 1 article that the set of measures aimed at reducing German deficit, approved in late August, included a tax on passenger air travel. In addition, the government is reportedly considering adding a tax on nuclear-fuel rods estimated to be worth 2.3 billion euros annually.

The Economist's Avent: Germany's stimulus spending "was quite large by developed nation standards." In an August 30 post on The Economist's Free Exchange blog, economics editor Ryan Avent wrote that "Germany's stimulus spending was smaller than America's, but it was quite large by developed nation standards." He continued:

Germany is one of the few euro zone countries to increase its budget deficit from 2009 to 2010. And planned 2011 cuts are quite small relative to those in countries pursuing crash austerity programmes, which are also suffering very weak recoveries (Greece has yet to get out of recession, and Spain may be heading back in).

This doesn't mean that stimulus is the key to German success. But Germany is absolutely not an example of strong growth despite austerity.

German stimulus included "cash for clunkers" program and another that paid companies to retain workers. According to the Brookings Institution, Germany passed two stimulus packages -- the first in November 2008 and a second, larger one in January 2009. The total package amounted to approximately $130.4 billion, 3.4 percent of Germany's 2008 GDP, and included tax cuts, as well as spending on public infrastructure and a program similar to the U.S.' "cash for clunkers" program. Germany's Spiegel Online reported that the stimulus "helped Germany's substantial auto supplies industry to offset the sharp decline of the previous year with shipments to those foreign automakers benefiting directly from the scrapping premium." Spiegel also described the "short-time working program" through which the government subsidized companies who chose to reduce employees' hours rather than lay them off. In a Guardian op-ed, Center for Economic and Policy Research co-director Mark Weisbrot also wrote that this program "saved hundreds of thousands of jobs in Germany," keeping its unemployment rate "at or below pre-recession levels."

Economist Mark Weisbrot: The "Germans definitely did not cut their budget deficit during recession." In his August 30 Guardian op-ed, Weisbrot explained that, thus far, Germany's recovery formula "has not included pro-cyclical policies -- fiscal tightening when the economy is contracting or barely growing." He further wrote that "the latest budget figures released this week show that Germany's budget deficit for the first half of this year has doubled as compared to one year ago. At 3.5% of GDP, it is still lower than that of many other European countries. But the Germans definitely did not cut their budget deficit during recession."

German budget deficit has doubled since same time last year. The International Business Times reported on August 24 that Germany's deficit spending has "spike[d]" because of its stimulus package. According to the Times, which cited Germany's Federal Statistical Office as its source, "net borrowing for the first six months of the year amounted to 42.8 billion euros -- more than double the 18.7 billion euro figure from a year ago." That amounts to a deficit that is 3.5 percent of GDP, compared with Germany's 2009 first-half deficit of 1.5 percent. The Times noted that the European Union forbids deficits of more than 3 percent of GDP.

German growth attributed to export economy and weak euro

Germany is benefiting from increasing global demand and a weak euro that makes its exports more competitive. The August 13 Bloomberg article explained that the German economy "is benefiting from a recovery in global demand after last year's recession just as the euro's 10 percent decline against the dollar this year makes its exports more competitive outside the region." On August 14, The Wall Street Journal reported that German growth in the second quarter "was spurred by exports of equipment and autos to Asia and other emerging markets, as well as investment" and the resumption of construction projects delayed by Germany's harsh winter.

The article also reported: "The weaker euro -- which lost about 15% against the dollar as the crisis unfolded between December and June -- boosted German exports, while investors seeking the safety of German bonds drove borrowing costs lower, making it cheaper for companies to invest." Agence France Presse further reported that Germany was "particularly well-placed to cash in" on the "strong demand for imports in emerging markets, notably Asia" that is driving European economic growth.

Weisbrot: German growth "was driven mostly by exports." In his Guardian op-ed, Weisbrot also wrote that Germany's "record second quarter growth -- 2.2% over the previous quarter, or 9% at an annual rate -- was driven mostly by exports, which grew 8.2% over the previous quarter, or 37% annualised. As the South Centre has noted, for 2002-2007, exports accounted for 143% of Germany's growth -- meaning that the German economy would have actually contracted over these years if not for export growth."

Krugman: Germany decline and recovery due to export-oriented economy. In his August 24 post, Krugman further wrote:

Basically, here's the German story: it's an economy that didn't have a housing bubble, so it wasn't caught up directly in the bust. But it's very export-oriented, with a focus on durable manufactured goods. Demand for these goods plunged in the early stages of the crisis -- so that Germany, remarkably, had a bigger GDP decline than the bubble economies -- but has bounced back since summer 2009. This has pulled Germany back up; exports to China have done especially well.

If there's a slam-dunk argument for austerity in there, it's remarkably well hidden.

FT columnist: "Germany is recovering faster this year because it contracted faster last year." In his August 29 Financial Times column (registration required), Wolfgang Münchau wrote that "it is important to keep some perspective and not draw false inferences from the 9 per cent annualised growth rate during the second quarter" in Germany. He continued:

If you look at the period since the beginning of the financial crisis, Germany's economic performance has been dismal. If you compare levels of gross domestic product between Germany and the US since the crisis, you find the US significantly outperformed Germany during that period. That situation may still be reversed if the US were to go into a double-dip recession. But the best judgment we can make now is that of Christine Lagarde, the French finance minister, in her recent interview in the Financial Times: Germany is recovering faster this year because it contracted faster last year, when GDP fell by 5 per cent. So far, this looks like classic dead-cat bounce.

McKeown: "German recovery will weaken as global demand slows and its own fiscal consolidation begins next year." Economist Jennifer McKeown reportedly said that the "German recovery will weaken as global demand slows and its own fiscal consolidation begins next year." BBC News also reported that Carsten Brzeski of ING Financial Markets said, "Looking ahead, it is almost needless to say that the current growth momentum is hardly sustainable in the coming months. With the one-off impact from the construction sector and normalising of export growth, German growth will return to more ordinary numbers."

Reuters: "Many economists" expect pace of German growth to slow again. In an August 13 article, Reuters reported: "Many economists were surprised by the size of the surge but expect the pace to slow again in the second half of 2010 and beyond, when austerity measures in Germany and several weaker economies could lead to a deceleration, especially if some slowing in China lowers Asian demand for European goods."

The right-wing media is attacking Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf for saying that opposition to the Park51 project creates "danger from the radicals in the Muslim world to our national security," by claiming, among other things, that Rauf's comments amounted to "threaten[ing] America." But Rauf's comments echo those of national security experts, such as Gen. David Petraeus, who have warned of the security implications of anti-Muslim protests.

Rauf warned of possible backlash to perception "that Islam is under attack"

Rauf warned of "the danger from the radicals in the Muslim world to our national security." On the September 8 edition of CNN's Larry King Live, Rauf warned of the dangers of perceived anti-Islam sentiment in the United States, especially pertaining to opposition to his Park51 project. From Larry King Live:

RAUF: Yes, indeed. Because the United States, we are the only global superpower today. What happens here has enormous impact over the rest of the world. People all over the Muslim world admire America, love America, take America as an example in many, many respects. And the status of Muslims in America and how American Muslims speak to these issues and how America engages with its Muslim community has global ramifications.

[...]

RAUF: I am extremely concerned about sensitivity. But I also have a responsibility. If we move from that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse. The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack. And I'm less concerned about the radicals in America than I'm concerned about the radicals in the Muslim world.

O'BRIEN: But isn't that also saying you're less concerned about the voices of opposition here?

RAUF: And if we do -- no, no, no, no. I'm sorry, I don't mean it that way. I meant it, the danger from the radicals in the Muslim world to our national security, to the national security of our troops.

I have a niece who works in the Army and served in Iraq. The concern for American citizens who live and work and travel overseas will increasingly be compromised if the radicals are strengthened. And if we do move, it will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit, their ability to recruit, and their increasing aggression and violence against our country.

[...]

O'BRIEN: Then why is it hard to back up and say, and now that we've done it, let's undo it, let's just say we won't. Let's pick another spot that's been offered?

RAUF: As I just mentioned, our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it, and what we do. It is important for us now to raise the bar on our conversation--

O'BRIEN: What's the risk? When you say "national security," what's the risk?

RAUF: As I mentioned, because if we move, that means the radicals have shaped the discourse. The radicals will shape the discourse on both sides. And those of us who are moderates on both sides -- you see Soledad, the battle front is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The real battle front is between moderates on all sides of all the faith traditions and the radicals on all sides. The radicals actually feed off each other. And in some kind of existential way, need each other. And the more that the radicals are able to control the discourse on one side, it strengthens the radicals on the other side and vice versa. We have to turn this around.

Right-wing media distort Rauf's comments to claim his words are a "veiled threat"

Carlson: Rauf "says move forward with the mosque near ground zero or we could face certain violence here?" On the September 9 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson teased an upcoming segment on Rauf's Larry King appearance by saying "the imam behind the Park 51 finally speaking out. ... He says move forward with the mosque near ground zero, or we could face certain violence here?"

Ingraham: "It's a veiled threat. Sounded like that to me." Later on Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham said "the way he said" that there could be negative implications to moving the mosque, "I found it to be chilling." Carlson asked Ingraham, "Is that a threat, Laura? Is that a threat?" Ingraham responded, "It's a veiled threat. Sounded like that to me. I mean, he's obviously seeing what he's seeing in the Middle East, which I think that should be the conversation," and said Rauf's "attitude last night, I think, it frankly stoked more tensions, and he's the opposite of a bridge builder on this particular issue."

Malkin: "I don't think it's any mistake that he used the word explode." Later on Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade played a clip from Rauf's interview and said, "It's unbelievable that he would come to that conclusion. That to me is clearly a threat." Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin responded:

MALKIN: No doubt about it. But it's not unbelievable. It's completely expected, and I don't think it's any mistake that he used the word explode. In so many of these cases over the years, predating and postdating September 11, we've seen the practice of many of these members of the religion of perpetual outrage. And they'll use any excuse to explode, whether it's the drawing of some cartoons of Mohammed or in the Middle East, everything from holding beauty pageants to building KFCs in their neighborhoods. It's always an excuse to explode. And this is the point -- this is the point of the opponents of the ground zero mosque. It's not just about the mosque. It's about this threat that hangs over Western civilization like a Damoclean sword at all times for all reasons. 

Co-host Gretchen Carlson responded by asking Malkin: "That's what I was thinking when I was seeing this, and I hate to be cynical about it, but could it be -- could it be, if you were really cynical, that they're testing the waters, that they deliberately want to put a mosque that close to Ground Zero and then when they know there is some sort of outrage, then they claim what he claimed last night, that watch out, if you don't put it here, you're going to be attacked?" Malkin replied: "Well, yeah. I don't think that's cynicism, Gretchen. I think that's an informed conclusion, and it's certainly based on past behavior of Islamic imperialists and provocateurs who know what they're doing. I think -- we're headed towards the ninth anniversary of 9-11, and it's about time people become informed about what their true intentions are."

Geller: "Ground Zero Supremacist Imam Rauf Threatens America." In a September 9 Atlas Shrugs post, titled "Ground Zero Supremacist Imam Rauf Threatens America," Pam Geller wrote "Fresh off his US taxpayer funded [fund raising] tour of the Middle East, Imam Rauf held command over the mainstream media. He rolled out with his unchallenged oped piece in this morning's NY Times ("We are proceeding with the community center, Cordoba House"), and followed it up with his not so veiled threats against America on Larry King...He said again that if he knew ahead of time the controversy this would create, he wouldn't have made the plans to build the center at the currently planned site. Liar. He loves it. Rauf's contempt for us oozes from his every enlarged pore."

Gateway Pundit: "Ground Zero Victory Mosque Imam Issues Threat: If You Don't Build It 'They Will Attack.'" In a September 9 Gateway Pundit post, titled "Ground Zero Victory Mosque Imam Issues Threat: If You Don't build It 'They Will Attack,'" Jim Hoft wrote that "Ground Zero Victory Mosque Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf issued a threat to America in his interview with CNN this week. The radical imam warned that if America did not get down on its knees and allow the victory mosque to be built on the bones of dead Americans that...'They will attack'" (emphasis in original).

Fox Nation: "Imam Threatens U.S., Says If Mosque Moves, Terror Will 'Explode.'" The Fox Nation linked to an ABC News article on Rauf's interview under the headline "Imam Threatens U.S., Says If Mosque Moves, Terror Will 'Explode.'" From the Fox Nation:

Fox hosts 9-11 firefighter to attack Rauf as "a tax-evading, terrorist sympathizing, Armani wearing slumlord" who is "try[ing] to extort America" and "wants to build a Tower of Triumph on the graveyard of my friends." On the September 9 broadcast of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Bill Hemmer hosted Tim Brown -- a former New York City firefighter who participated in the response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- to respond to Rauf's comments. Brown accused Rauf of "try[ing] to extort America" in his remarks. Brown went on to reference Rauf's recent State Department-sponsored trip abroad and said, "We just paid to fly him around the world to gin up the Muslim world ... so that he could come back and threaten us." Rauf was a participant in a State Department program focused on outreach with the Muslim world, a program he began participating in under President Bush. Brown went on to call Rauf "a tax-evading, terrorist sympathizing, Armani wearing, slumlord, who partners with criminals and wants to build a tower of triumph on the graveyard of my friends."

But experts agree that protests against Park51 are aiding extremists

NPR:  "Some experts worry the controversy plays into the hands of extremists." On the August 24 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition, host Linda Wertheimer noted that "some experts worry the controversy plays into the hands of extremists." NPR correspondent Dina Temple-Raston noted that "in password-protected forums run by extremists, there's a different view. All this controversy is welcomed. Extremists and radical clerics, including one who has become a kind of bug light of sorts, attracting young American jihadis, have posted a stream of 'I told you so' messages. They've long claimed that Islam is under attack by the West. The violent reaction to the center, they say, now proves it." NPR played clips of national security experts, including Evan F. Kohlmann of Flashpoint Global Partners who noted that "this unfortunately is playing right into their hands, and as such, they're encouraging it. With glee." And Brian Fishman, Counterterrorism Research Fellow at the New America Foundation noted that "some of the anti-Islamic tone that has been going on around the country in connection with the mosque debate feeds into this notion that people like Anwar al-Awlaki can take advantage of."

Haass: World watching "to see whether Muslims in America have rights, have opportunities that Muslims in lots of other countries don't." During the August 16 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations and former adviser to Colin Powell, stated that "this has now become an international issue" and part of "the battle for hearts and minds in the Muslim world":

HAASS: The anti-American aspect of this -- this has now become an international issue. One of the great ironies is the people doing this mosque, this community center, want to develop an American version of Islam that competes around the world with the Wahhabi -- with the Saudi intolerant version of Islam. So this issue now is being watched around the world to prove or to see whether Muslims in America have rights, have opportunities that Muslims in lots of other countries don't. 

So this has actually become an important aspect of our battle for the hearts and minds. It's no longer just a New York issue, it's no longer just a national issue. This has something really to do with the battle for hearts and minds in the Muslim world and whether there can be an American version of Islam that is more open and tolerant.

NSN policy analyst James Lamond: Attacking Islamic center is "counterproductive to our anti-terrorism efforts." In a July 30 article, James Lamond, a policy expert for the progressive National Security Network, condemned Newt Gingrich's statements about Islam and against the Islamic cultural center as "counterproductive to our anti-terrorism efforts. First at a strategic level, it plays into al Qaeda's framework that the West is at war with Islam." Lamond wrote:

But the frame that Gingrich is promoting is not only un-American and counter to our values, it is also counterproductive to our anti-terrorism efforts. First, at a strategic level, it plays into al Qaeda's framework that the West is at war with Islam. As Malcolm Nance, a former military intelligence officer and author of An End to al-Qaeda, recently told the American Prospect's Adam Serwer: "When you frame it as a fight against Islam and Islamic fundamentalism ... you're almost encouraging Osama bin Laden's line of thinking. He loves this idea that this is seen as a clash between Islam and the West; he wants that, he thrives on that." 

At another level, this fear mongering and overreaction serves to diminish America's resilience, an important component of America's counterterrorism strategy. The National Security Strategy says that resilience is, "the ability to adapt to changing conditions and prepare for, withstand, and rapidly recover from disruption." There are many facets of this approach, from a resilient infrastructure to a resilience economy. However an important part is also a resilient society that does not abandon its core values as soon as they're challenged. Yet a decade after 9/11 Gingrich is ready to give up on America's strength and resiliency. In addition, Stephen Flynn, president of the Center for National Policy, who has been the leader for years on promoting resilience, says that there is also a deterrent value to resilience saying that, "if an adversary believes that Americans are well-prepared to prevent, withstand, and rapidly recover from acts of terrorism, the appeal of engaging in such acts would be diminished." Basically, by his hysteria, Gingrich is feeding into al Qaeda's goal of promoting a hysterical reaction.

Amr and Singer: "The world constantly watches to see whether we actually live up to our ideals." In a 2008 paper, Hady Amr, foreign policy fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings and director of the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar, and Peter Singer, senior fellow and director of Brookings' 21^st Century Defense Initiative, wrote that "a zero-tolerance stand against anti-Muslim statements and bias" is necessary "to be able to inspire the Muslim world to support our vision of 'liberty and justice for all' in the world":

There are six broad principles that should guide our strategy to improve U.S. security through winning the war of ideas and broadening and deepening relationships between U.S. citizens and institutions and their counterparts abroad. These overarching principles include:

Confronting who we are. Harkening back to the civil rights era and the Cold War, unless we take a zero-tolerance stand against anti-Muslim statements and bias both in government and among our political elite, we risk being cast as undertaking a "war on Islam" instead of a "war on terror." America must clearly confront its civil liberty concerns at home--and in our military campaigns--if we are to be able to inspire the Muslim world to support our vision of "liberty and justice for all" in the world.

[...]

In an age of globalized technology and communication, the world is watching to see if we live up to our ideals of civil liberties and constitutional values, and is waiting to see if we stamp out anti-Muslim bigotry at home. A series of anti-Muslim statements made by various policymakers and close Administration supporters have undercut President Bush's post 9/11 message that Islam was not to blame for the attacks. Even though media in the Middle East give extensive coverage to these sorts of statements, the Administration has usually failed to condemn them or separate itself from the speakers. Bigotry in our midst is not just distasteful; in the age of globalization, it directly undermines our security. We live in an era where the world constantly watches to see whether we actually live up to our ideals. At a time when many in the world expect the worst of us, such positions only support the enemy's propaganda and recruiting efforts. Efforts on this front alone will determine if we have the moral authority to build multi-government coalitions and can inspire other countries to follow suit.

Former Bush administration officials warned of the dangers of Park51's opposition

Gerson: Solidarity with non-radical Muslims is "a matter of national interest." In an August 16 Washington Post column, former Bush official Michael Gerson wrote that "[p]undits have every right to raise questions about the construction of an Islamic center near Ground Zero," but added that "inclusive rhetoric toward Islam" is "a matter of national interest." Gerson questioned how "our cause [is] served by treating the construction of a non-radical mosque in Lower Manhattan as the functional equivalent of defiling a grave":

An inclusive rhetoric toward Islam is sometimes dismissed as mere political correctness. Having spent some time crafting such rhetoric for a president, I can attest that it is actually a matter of national interest. It is appropriate -- in my view, required -- for a president to draw a clear line between "us" and "them" in the global conflict with Muslim militants. I wish Obama would do it with more vigor. But it matters greatly where that line is drawn. The militants hope, above all else, to provoke conflict between the West and Islam -- to graft their totalitarian political manias onto a broader movement of Muslim solidarity. America hopes to draw a line that isolates the politically violent and those who tolerate political violence -- creating solidarity with Muslim opponents and victims of radicalism.

How precisely is our cause served by treating the construction of a non-radical mosque in Lower Manhattan as the functional equivalent of defiling a grave? It assumes a civilizational conflict instead of defusing it. Symbolism is indeed important in the war against terrorism. But a mosque that rejects radicalism is not a symbol of the enemy's victory; it is a prerequisite for our own.

[...]

There are many reasons to criticize Obama's late, vacillating response to the Manhattan mosque, and perhaps even to criticize this particular mosque. But those who want a president to assert that any mosque would defile the neighborhood near Ground Zero are asking him to undermine the war on terrorism. A war on Islam would make a war on terrorism impossible.

Former Bush official Armitage discussing mosque: Terrorists are winning "when we change our own ideals." On the August 9 edition of The Charlie Rose Show (accessed via Nexis), former Bush deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage responded to the question, "We should put [the mosque] there and be confident about it?" by saying: "My own view is don't let the terrorists win. When we change our own ideals and our own principles, they're winning, we're not." From The Charlie Rose Show:

ROSE: There is this also. What are the biggest challenges to America today?

ARMITAGE: The first and biggest challenge is to regain our confidence as a nation.

ROSE: Our confidence?

ARMITAGE: Our confidence.

ROSE: In ourselves?

ARMITAGE: Yes. I'm tired of running around being scared of my shadow, having time spent talking about 14th Amendments by pandering politicians who on the one hand say they want to be strict constructionists of the Constitution and on the other hand want to throw out amendments which have been pored over by the courts and I think validated over the years.

So I think getting our confidence back as a nation. I might say this also extends to the controversy over the mosque in the 9/11 site.

CHARLIE ROSE: We should put it there and be confident about it?

ARMITAGE: My own view is don't let the terrorists win. When we change our own ideals and our own principles, they're winning, we're not. So that's the most difficult thing. 

Former Bush adviser Mark McKinnon: Anti-Muslim rhetoric surrounding cultural center is "reinforcing Al Qaeda's message we are at war with Muslims." On the August 16 edition of Morning Joe, GOP strategist and former Bush adviser Mark McKinnon stated that the inflammatory rhetoric surrounding the the cultural center is "stunning, and it is so contrary to our country's principles." He later said that the anti-Muslim rhetoric is "reinforcing Al Qaeda's message we are at war with Muslims."

Top military, law enforcement and administration officials have made similar comments when discussing other anti-Muslim protests

Odierno: Planned Koran burning on 9-11 "feeds right into what" the extremists "want." On the September 8 broadcast of NBC News' Today, Gen. Raymond Odierno, former commander of US forces in Iraq, discussed plans by a Christian pastor to host "International Burn a Koran Day" on the anniversary of 9-11. Odierno said: "Most Muslims are very moderate, and what you have is you have extremists. And what this does is this feeds right into what they want. What -- they feed off of hate and fear, and they will use this to generate more hate. And what that will turn into is potentially more violence against U.S. troops." He added: "I think there'll be some backlash, and I think you've started to see some already. And I worry that it'll turn into violence against our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, other places as well. ... It's extremists who try to gain from this, and they use it to recruit, they use it to create hatred, because everything -- what they've built is built on hatred of what we do here in the U.S." 

Petraeus: Quran-burning would "inflame public opinion and incite violence." In an email to The Associated Press, Gen. David Petraeus responded to plans to hold a Quran book-burning by noting "Images of the burning of a Quran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan -- and around the world -- to inflame public opinion and incite violence."

Clinton: "The fact is, it will have potentially great harm for our troops." In a September 8 interview with Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Hass, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted that "General Petraeus made the very powerful point that as seemingly, you know, small a group of people doing this, the fact is that it will have potentially great harm for our troops."

Right-wing media omitted essential context from recent remarks made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to falsely claim that she attacked President Obama's economic policies when she said, "I think that our rising debt levels poses a national security threat," and also to speculate that Clinton is planning to challenge Obama in 2012. In fact, Clinton's full remarks clearly condemned the policies of the Bush administration -- not Obama.

Clinton's national security remarks -- in context -- clearly condemn Bush spending policies

Clinton: "[I]t is fair to say that ... we fought two wars without paying for them, and we had tax cuts that were not paid for either, and that has been a very deadly combination to fiscal sanity and responsibility." During a September 8 appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton stated that the "rising debt levels poses a national security threat" and criticized President Bush's deficit spending (emphasis added):

CLINTON: I think that our rising debt levels poses a national security threat, and it poses a national security threat in two ways. It undermines our capacity to act in our own interest, and it does constrain us where constraint may be undesirable. And it also sends a message of weakness internationally. I mean, it is very troubling to me that we are losing the ability not only to chart our own destiny but to, you know, have the leverage that comes from this enormously effective economic engine that has powered American values and interests over so many years.

So I don't think we have a choice. It's a question of how we -- how we decide to deal with this debt and deficit. I mean, you know, it is -- we don't need to go back and sort of re-litigate how we got to where we are, but it is fair to say that, you know, we fought two wars without paying for them, and we had tax cuts that were not paid for either. And that has been a very deadly combination to fiscal sanity and responsibility.

So the challenge is how we get out of it by making the right decisions, not the wrong decisions. I mean, there's a lot of wrong things we could do that would further undermine our strength. I mean, it is going to be very difficult for those decisions.

NYDN: "Clinton took a veiled shot at Republicans...for running up a national debt" that was harmful to U.S. interests. The New York Daily News reported on Clinton's statement and noted that in her remarks about the national debt she "took a veiled shot at Republicans on Wednesday for running up a national debt that she said was a drag on U.S. influence overseas."

Right-wing media omit context to falsely claim Clinton attacked Obama, speculate she is planning 2012 run

Fox News uses deceptive video editing to concoct Clinton/Obama schism. On the September 8 edition of Fox News' America Live, host Megyn Kelly aired a clip of Clinton's remarks but omitted the portion in which Clinton criticized Bush's spending policies. She and guest Monica Crowley then baselessly speculated about whether Clinton, in Kelly's words, is "coasting along in this role of secretary of state, watching President Obama take all the hits on the economy, maybe a tweak here or there about how his policies are undermining not just our national economy, but our international security, which she does have to worry about, and then what, she emerges in a couple of years to say, 'I told you so.' " Kelly teased the segment by asking, "Did Hillary Clinton just effectively declare her candidacy for president of the United States?"

Fox Nation: "Hillary takes Swipe at Obamanomics?" Linking to video of Clinton's remarks, Fox Nation asked, "Hillary Takes Swipe at Obamanomics?" From Fox Nation:

Fox & Friends: "She's clearly talking about President Obama." On the September 9 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson teased a segment on Clinton's comments by asking, "Why is she taking a swing at President Obama?" Later in the show, co-hosts Steve Doocy, Brian Kilmeade, and Carlson all agreed with guest Meghan McCain that Clinton was "clearly talking about President Obama." From Fox & Friends:

CLINTON [video clip]: Our rising debt levels poses a national security threat, and it poses a national security threat in two ways. It undermines our capacity to act in our own interest, and it does constrain us where constraint may be undesirable. And it also sends a message of weakness internationally.

DOOCY: Wait a minute, it sounds like she's taking a swing at her own boss.

McCAIN: Yeah, I mean, I think everyone thinks this is surprising. I'm glad that she is, sort of, feels the way I feel. Is she running for 2012? I have no idea. I don't know if this is necessarily an indicator.

KILMEADE: Well, I will say this. If you look at the GDP, in relation to debt, President Obama has added more to the debt then everyone from George Washington combined up to Ronald Reagan. So, if she's concerned about the debt -- and she's really talking about President Obama.

McCAIN: Yeah. She's clearly talking about President Obama. And I agree that it is a national security threat, so Hillary Clinton and I agree on something.

Morris: Clinton's comments are "the first shot in the Democratic primary of 2012." On the September 8 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Dick Morris claimed that Clinton's comments were "no accident at all" and "the first shot in the Democratic primary of 2012":

BILL O'REILLY (host): That comes one day -- one day after Barack Obama announces a $500 billion stimulus spending bill that would ratchet up the debt even further. Accident?

MORRIS: No, no accident at all. It's -- nothing she does is an accident about that. This, I believe, is the opening side shot, the first shot in the Democratic primary of 2012. That's not to say it's certain that she'll run. It's to say she's moving in that direction. If Obama gets massacred, yet on Election Day, which I think his people will. I think it's going to be the biggest rout you can imagine. And if that sends his poll numbers cascading downwards, then I think there will, in fact, be a spontaneous grassroots Democratic demand for new leadership.

WorldNetDaily: "Dissension In The Ranks: Cabinet member hits alarm over Obama's colossal debt." In a September 8 article titled, "Dissension In The Ranks: Cabinet member hits alarm over Obama's colossal debt," WorldNetDaily's Jerome Corsi distorted Clinton's comments even while noting that Clinton was blaming Bush for the current deficit problem (emphasis added):

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the U.S. military joint command are now both on record that rising levels of U.S. national debt pose a national security threat.

The message to the commander-in-chief now from both the secretary of state and the U.S. joint military command appears to have been delivered loud and clear -- continuing U.S. federal budget deficits measured in the trillions of dollars makes Americans less safe to threats posed by foreign enemies.

[...]

In an apparent effort to blame President George W. Bush for the federal budget deficit problem, Clinton said, "I mean, you know, it is -- we don't need to go back and sort of re-litigate how we got to where we are, but it is fair to say that, you know, we fought two wars without paying for them, and we had tax cuts that were not paid for either."

Fox News' Bill Hemmer uncritically repeated House Republican leader John Boehner's statement that he would repeal or block funding for health care reform before it "'bankrupts' the country." Hemmer ignored multiple Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports stating that health care reform will actually reduce the federal deficit.

Fox uncritically quotes Boehner falsely claiming health care reform would "bankrupt" U.S.

From the September 9 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:

HEMMER: Also, the man hoping to be the next house speaker vowing to kill the health care reform law. House minority leader John Boehner telling a newspaper in Cincinnati saying he will repeal or block funding for the new law before it "bankrupts" the country, his words from yesterday.

CBO: Health care reform reduces the federal deficit

CBO in March: Health care reform law will reduce deficit by $143 billion over next ten years, and by more in second decade.  The CBO determined in March that the two health care bills signed into law that month "would produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period." The CBO also estimates a further reduction in the second decade after enactment "with a total effect during that decade in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP."

In June, CBO reiterated that health care reform reduces the deficit. The June 30 CBO long-term budget outlook stated that if the health care reform law is implemented as written, it will "increase projected revenues, particularly in the 2030s and beyond, thus slowing the accumulation of debt considerably." The CBO also noted in a footnote of its June outlook that although the law will increase federal spending on health care in the next two decades, it will also "reduce budget deficits over the 2010-2019 period and in subsequent years."

In August, CBO "confirm[ed]" its findings. In an August 24 letter to Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), CBO director Doug Elmendorf wrote:

First, we can confirm the estimate of the overall impact on the federal budget of the major health care legislation enacted in March. Specifically, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA (Public Law 111-148) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-152) will produce $143 billion in net budgetary savings over the 2010-2019 period.1 That figure includes $124 billion in net savings for the health and revenue provisions of both laws and $19 billion in net savings for the education provisions of the Reconciliation Act.

As the nation prepares to mark the ninth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, numerous media figures have propagated anti-Muslim rhetoric, often smearing Muslims as "terrorists," "jihadists," and "extremists," and dismissing Islam altogether as a "militant" and "anti-Semitic" faith.

Media display anti-Muslim bigotry in recent weeks

Geller: "[A]nti-semitism is a basic tenet of Islam." In a September 8 blog post, Atlas Shrugs blogger Pamela Geller quoted Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's statement that "[t]he very word 'islam' comes from a word cognate to shalom, which means peace in Hebrew." Geller wrote: "Considering that Islamic anti-semitism is a basic tenet of Islam. This is particularly disgusting. Talk about giving us the middle finger."

Peretz questions whether Muslims "are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment." In a September 4 New Republic column, editor-in-chief Martin Peretz wrote that an "intense epidemic of slaughter [in the Islamic world] has been going on for nearly a decade and a half ... without protest, without anything. And it has been going for decades and centuries before that." Peretz then asked, "Why do not Muslims raise their voices against these at once planned and random killings all over the Islamic world?" He continued:

But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims. And among those Muslims led by the Imam Rauf there is hardly one who has raised a fuss about the routine and random bloodshed that defines their brotherhood. So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.

Buchanan: "[A] Western nation that opens its doors to mass migration from the Islamic world is taking a grave risk with its unity and identity." In an August 24 column, Pat Buchanan defended prejudice against Muslims by stating that while there are millions of "decent, peace-loving Muslims," "one would have to be obtuse not to understand that a Western nation that opens its doors to mass migration from the Islamic world is taking a grave risk with its unity and identity." Buchanan further stated:

This is not an argument for war with Islam, but for recognition that "East is East and West is West" and America cannot absorb and assimilate all the creeds of mankind without ceasing to be who we are.

Prejudice is prejudgment. And if prejudgment is rooted in the history and traditions of a people, and what life has taught us, it is a shield that protects. Only a fool would reject the inherited wisdom of his kind because it fails to comport with the ideology of the moment.

Franklin Graham: "True Islam" can't be practiced in U.S. because "you cannot beat your wife, you cannot do honor killing." On the August 19 broadcast of CNN's John King USA, Franklin Graham repeated his frequent attacks on Islam, claiming: "Remember, true Islam cannot be practiced here in this country. You cannot beat your wife. You cannot do honor killing if you think your daughter has misbehaved. You cannot kill her. And they're protected by the laws of this country. We're not under Sharia law. We're under the Constitution of the United States. And so we're protected."

Buchanan: Islam "is a militant faith." In an August 17 column about Obama's comments on the proposed Islamic center in New York, Buchanan wrote: "Islam is a rising faith, the largest on earth, with 1.5 billion adherents. It is a militant faith that believes it will one day encompass all mankind." He further claimed:

Where it has become the dominant faith, it has been intolerant of rivals, especially Christianity, the faith of the Crusaders.

By no means are all or most Muslims fanatics of the Osama bin Laden variety, but many are uncompromising in their belief that, once their faith becomes the majority faith in a community or society, Muslims should write the rules and Muslims should make the laws.

And if Americans believe that Islam is consistent with pluralism, ecumenism and a belief in the equality of all religions and all lifestyles, we are headed for what the Chinese call "interesting times."

Gingrich compares Islamic center to Nazis erecting sign near Holocaust museum, Japanese site near Pearl Harbor. On the August 16 edition of Fox & Friends, Newt Gingrich said: "Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There's no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center."

Nugent: "The mosque will attract extremists and radicals who will try to harm America." In an August 19 Washington Times op-ed attacking Park51, Ted Nugent wrote that "[t]he mosque will attract extremists and radicals who will try to harm America." Nugent repeatedly referred to Islam as a "voodoo religion" and concluded, "If additional American blood is spilled in the Big Apple, the politicians who supported this mosque will be as guilty as the Muslim voodoo kooks who love death and destruction in the name of Allah."

Cal Thomas repeatedly suggests Park51 would be a terrorist front. In an August 3 column, conservative commentator Cal Thomas wrote: "Ask yourself: if you wanted to infiltrate a country, wouldn't a grand strategy be to rapidly build mosques from Ground Zero in New York, to Temecula, Calif., and establish beachheads so fanatics could plan and advance their strategies under the cover of religious freedom and that great American virtue known as 'tolerance,' which is being used against us?" In a July 21 post on The Washington Post's On Faith blog, Thomas wrote:

A mosque near Ground Zero is not about tolerance, but triumphalism. It isn't about honoring the dead, but celebrating their deaths.

[...]

Don't we know why our enemies desire a beachhead in America? They wish to launch new terror attacks and forcibly convert Americans to their way of thinking and believing. What will we gain by allowing this to happen?

Morris: Park 51 will be used to "train and recruit Sharia law advocates who become terrorists." On the August 19 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Dick Morris cited a study that he claimed said "80 percent of the mosques ... teach Sharia law as the main event." Morris later claimed that Park 51 will be used to "study and promote and train and recruit Sharia law advocates, which, who become terrorists." In his August 18 column, Morris wrote, "The proposed mosque near to ground zero is not really a religious institution. It would be -- as many mosques throughout the nation are -- a terrorist recruitment, indoctrination and training center." Morris also stated, "There can be no doubt that any mosque organized and run by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf will be based on Sharia Law and will serve as local branch office of the pan-Islamic terrorist offensive against the west."

Morris: "[T]hese Sharia mosques ... have become the command center for terrorists," and Park51 "would be, too." On the August 18 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, during a discussion of Park51, Morris claimed that "these Sharia mosques ... have become the command centers for terrorists," adding, "so this one would be, too."

Bolling: Park51 "may be a meeting place for some of the scariest minds -- some of the biggest terrorist minds." On the August 19 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox Business host Eric Bolling claimed that Park51 "may be a meeting place for some of the scariest minds -- some of the biggest terrorist minds."

Kilmeade: "The next Hamburg cell could be right downtown." During the discussion with Bolling on the August 19 Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade said of Park51, "The next Hamburg cell could be right downtown." A terrorist cell in Hamburg, Germany -- whose members would later become the 9-11 hijackers -- is believed to be the origin of the 9-11 plot.

Limbaugh suggests Park51 would be a "recruiting tool for domestic extremists." On the August 3 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated that if the Guantanamo Bay detention center "is a recruiting tool for foreign extremists, what about a World Trade Center mosque being a recruiting tool for domestic extremists?"

Fox guest suggests Islamic cultural center is intended to "trumpet" Muslim conquest. On the August 16 edition of Fox & Friends, guest Jeanine Pirro -- former Republican candidate for New York state attorney general -- said, "I think the whole idea of the mosque is outrageous, and if you're a student of history, you know that mosques are often built to trumpet their victories."

Beck asks, "[A]fter you've killed 3,000 people, you're going to now build your mosque?" On his August 18 radio show, Glenn Beck said of Park51: "You look for things that are uniting, I'm sorry, but the Cordoba Project is not uniting. If you wanted to unite people, you don't spit in their face. You don't spit in their face. On the 10th anniversary, after you've killed 3,000 people, you're going to now build your mosque on there, really?" Beck has repeatedly falsely claimed that Park51 was scheduled to open on September 11, 2011. He has also referred to the Islamic center as "the 9-11 mosque" and has wondered if it is "a possibility" that Park51's location is about "inoculation."

Limbaugh calls Islamic center "a victory monument at Ground Zero." On August 17, Limbaugh called Park51 "a victory monument at Ground Zero, which is what this mosque is." He added: "The real question is why do people who don't like this country want that mosque there? What is so important about having it there?"

Palin calls Park 51 a "stab in the heart" for Americans and a "slap" to 9-11 victims. During the August 16 edition of Fox News' On the Record, Fox News contributor Sarah Palin claimed that it was "an insensitive move on the part of those Muslims who want to build that mosque in this location. It feels like a stab in the heart to, collectively, Americans who still have that lingering pain from 9-11." Palin later said, "[T]his is a slap to those innocent victims who were murdered that day on 9-11."

Hoft dubs Park 51 the "Ground Zero Victory Mosque." In an August 16 Gateway Pundit post, Jim Hoft touted Fox News' Bill O'Reilly's criticism of Obama's comments about Park 51 and described the Islamic community center as the "Ground Zero Victory Mosque."

Washington Times: "If the mosque is constructed, the terrorists win." In an August 19 editorial, The Washington Times stated of the planned Islamic community center in New York City: "The Ground Zero Mosque is not healing a rift but deepening a wound. If the mosque is constructed, the terrorists win."

Geller absurdly compared NYC Islamic cultural center to building a KKK "shrine" near black Alabama church. On the August 11 edition of Fox & Friends, Geller absurdly compared building an Islamic cultural center two blocks away from Ground Zero in New York to building a Ku Klux Klan "shrine" near a black church in Alabama.

Hemmer: Park51 could be "the first stop for a radical jihadist who comes to America who wants to go pray." On the September 7 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer said of Park51, "It could also be the first stop for a radical jihadist who comes to America who wants to go pray."

Boortz: Park51 "being built to commemorate a great victory over the United States on 9-11." During the August 31 edition of Fox & Friends, right-wing radio host Neil Boortz claimed that Park51 is "being built to commemorate a great victory over the United States on 9-11."

Urbanski: "Would it be inflammatory to call the mosque a 'murder mosque' if it's there on Ground Zero?" On the August 27 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show, guest host Doug Urbanski asked, "Would it be inflammatory to call the mosque a 'murder mosque' if it's there on Ground Zero?"

Limbaugh compares campaign against Park51 to Cold War: "We're now fighting the mosqueovites." On his August 25 radio show, Limbaugh compared the right-wing campaign against Park51 to the Cold War, claiming, "We're now fighting the mosqueovites."

Gaffney: Protesters holding signs with "Shariah" written in "dripping, blood-red ink" is "informed opposition" to Park51. In an August 26 Washington Times op-ed, Frank Gaffney wrote that protesters at a recent rally against the planned Islamic community center in Manhattan "had come together ... in informed opposition to the impetus behind that mosque: Shariah." Gaffney added: "In fact, throughout the crowd could be seen signs with just the word 'Shariah' lettered in dripping, blood-red ink."

Media conservatives, led by Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, are comparing a Florida church's plans to burn Qurans on the anniversary of the 9-11 attacks to plans to build an Islamic community center in Manhattan.

Florida church plans to burn Islamic and Jewish religious texts

AP: Christian minister "vowed" to "burn copies of the Quran to protest the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." A September 8 Associated Press article reported, "A Christian minister vowed Tuesday to go ahead with plans to burn copies of the Quran to protest the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks despite warnings from the White House and the top U.S. general in Afghanistan that doing so would endanger American troops overseas." AP continued:

Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center said he understands the government's concerns, but plans to go forward with the burning this Saturday, the ninth anniversary of the attacks.

He left the door open to change his mind, saying he is still praying about his decision, which was condemned Tuesday by an interfaith coalition that met in Washington to respond to a spike in anti-Muslim bigotry.

Gen. David Petraeus warned in an e-mail to The Associated Press that "images of the burning of a Quran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan - and around the world - to inflame public opinion and incite violence."

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley echoed that, calling the plan to burn copies of the Quran "un-American" and saying it does not represent the views of most people in the U.S.

Miami Herald: Pastor "also plans to burn copies of the Talmud, a sacred Jewish text." A September 5 Miami Herald article reported that the Gainesville Dove World Outreach Center also plans to burn copies of the Talmud.

Right wing compares burning Qurans to building a community center

Beck: "It's just like the Ground Zero mosque plan." In a September 6 blog post to his website The Blaze, Glenn Beck wrote:

I'm on vacation and trying to unplug but the news can make that hard. I just read the story about the Florida church planning to burn copies of the Koran.

What is wrong with us?  It's just like the Ground Zero mosque plan.   Does this church have the right?  Yes.  Should they?  No.  And not because of the potential backlash or violence. Simply because it is wrong.

Palin: Quran burning "is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation - much like building a mosque at Ground Zero." In a September 8 post to her Facebook account, Fox News contributor Sarah Palin wrote:

Book burning is antithetical to American ideals. People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation - much like building a mosque at Ground Zero.

I would hope that Pastor Terry Jones and his supporters will consider the ramifications of their planned book-burning event. It will feed the fire of caustic rhetoric and appear as nothing more than mean-spirited religious intolerance. Don't feed that fire. If your ultimate point is to prove that the Christian teachings of mercy, justice, freedom, and equality provide the foundation on which our country stands, then your tactic to prove this point is totally counter-productive.

Our nation was founded in part by those fleeing religious persecution. Freedom of religion is integral to our charters of liberty. We don't need to agree with each other on theological matters, but tolerating each other without unnecessarily provoking strife is how we ensure a civil society. In this as in all things, we should remember the Golden Rule. Isn't that what the Ground Zero mosque debate has been about?

Barnes: "[T]his is similar in one way to the Ground Zero mosque." On the September 7 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier, Fox news contributor and Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes criticized plans to burn the Quran, and claimed that "Islamophobia" was "not sweeping America." Barnes further claimed:

But look, this is similar in one way to the Ground Zero mosque, the mosque that is planned to be built on the fringe of Ground Zero. And that is, it is what Sarah Palin called an unnecessary provocation. And this is a provocation, and that's what General Petraeus is worried about.

Beck guest host Glover: "[T]his burning the Quran issue is very similar to building the mosque on ground zero." During the September 8 edition of The Glenn Beck Program, guest host Dave Glover said that the debate over whether it was appropriate to burn copies of the Quran was "about wise choices" and that "this burning of the Quran issue is very similar to the building of the mosque on ground zero." Glover further claimed, "Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should."

Bolling and Geller agree: "The sensitivity issue" of Islamic community center and burning Qurans is "the same." During the September 7 edition of Fox Business' Money Rocks, host Eric Bolling claimed, "The sensitivity issue seems to be the key here for the mosque. Is it not the same issue with the Quran burning on Saturday?" He then asked, "So therefore, if you don't want them to burn the Quran on Saturday, why wouldn't Muslims -- moderate Muslims -- simply say, 'Hey, it's too sensitive an area downtown; move the mosque?'" Guest Pamela Geller, who has helped lead the push against the Islamic community center, said that the two were "the exact same issue." Geller also said that "the burning of books is wrong."

Boehner lumps in "Pastor Jones" with "those who want to build the mosque." During the September 8 edition of ABC News' Good Morning America, host George Stephanopoulos asked House minority leader John Boehner (R-OH) about Jones' plans to burn copies of the Quran. Boehner invoked the Islamic Community Center in Manhattan in his response: "Well, to Pastor Jones and those who want to build the mosque: Just because you have a right to do something in America does not mean it is the right thing to do."

Fox News is attacking President Obama's decision to attend a 9-11 memorial at the Pentagon rather than the World Trade Center site. However, former President George W. Bush routinely did not visit ground zero on past anniversaries of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and Vice President Joe Biden is attending a memorial at the World Trade Center site, like Vice President Dick Cheney did on the second anniversary.

Fox attacks President Obama for not appearing at ground zero on 9-11 anniversary 

Fox Nation: "Pres. Obama Not Attending 9/11 Ceremony at Ground Zero." Fox Nation linked to an Agence France-Presse article about Obama's upcoming appearance at the Pentagon under the voted in favor of the legislation. Nineteen Republican senators voted against the bill. The House voted to agree to the Senate amendments on March 31, by a 275-149 vote. Twenty-six Republican House members voted in favor of the bill.

Bush frequently called on Americans to volunteer on 9-11. Bush, in his January 2002 State of the Union address, cited the spirit of 9-11 and announced that he was creating the USA Freedom Corps, a national service organization. He [[, and]] called "for every American to commit at least two years, 4,000 hours over the rest of your lifetime, to the service of your neighbors and your nation." According to a USA Freedom Corps press release, on the first anniversary of 9-11, Bush said, "Many ask, 'What can I do to help in our fight?' And the answer is simple. All of us can become a September the 11th volunteer by making a commitment to service in our own communities." According to a September 8, 2008, Corporation for National and Community Service press release, "President Bush today renewed the call he made in the wake of the 9-11 attacks for every American to give 4,000 hours or two years of their lives in service to others."

Faced with the prospect of the top two income tax rates returning to where they were in 2000, conservative media have accused Democrats of engaging in "class warfare" to attack the "so-called rich." Economists have said that extending the Bush tax cuts for top earners -- which would reportedly cost $700 billion over ten years -- would do little to stimulate the economy; moreover, households making more than $250,000 will still pay less in taxes under Obama's plan than if all of the tax cuts were allowed to expire as Republicans originally scheduled them to do.

Economists say extending tax cuts for the wealthy would increase deficit while doing little to stimulate the economy

GOP Congress, Bush mandated that the tax cuts would expire after 2010. With the exception of changes to the estate tax, the 2001 tax bill states: "All provisions of, and amendments made by, this Act shall not apply ... to taxable, plan, or limitation years beginning after December 31, 2010." The 2001 tax bill passed the House and Senate with near-unanimous Republican support. The 2003 tax bill -- which also passed both article, The Washington Post reported: "By terminating the tax cuts at the end of 2010, negotiators were able to avoid some tough decisions. Since they could now distribute the same amount of money over nine years rather than 10 years, they effectively boosted the size of the tax cut while at the same time hiding its true cost." The Post reported in a May 24, 2003, article that "by 'sunsetting' all the tax cuts well before the bill's official 2013 expiration date, congressional tax writers took a measure that otherwise would have cost the Treasury more than $800 billion over the next decade and crammed it into a $350 billion price tag that could garner just enough support to pass the Senate. Democrats and Republicans alike predict that future Congresses and administrations will not let the tax cuts expire."

Obama wants to extend all of the lowered rates except for the top two. As The New York Times reported on August 10, Obama proposes "to extend the tax cuts for individuals with less than $200,000 in annual taxable income and couples with less than $250,000 -- about 98 percent of American households." The Times further noted:

If the president gets his way, in 2011 the top two income tax rates -- now 33 percent and 35 percent -- would revert to the levels before the Bush administration, 36 percent and 39.6 percent, respectively. But the four lower rates would remain 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent and 28 percent. For some taxpayers earning up to $250,000, the top marginal rate would remain 33 percent.

Extending all tax cuts for upper-earners would reportedly cost $700 billion over ten years. The Washington Post reported that an analysis by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation found that a "Republican plan to extend tax cuts for the rich would add more than $36 billion to the federal deficit next year." The New York Times further reported that the 10-year cost of extending the tax cuts for the upper-income earners would be "about $700 billion."

Economists: Extending the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy is poor stimulus. Howard Gleckman of the Tax Policy Center wrote that "higher income households are more likely to bank the cash than spend it. As a result, tax cuts for these high-earners will do relatively little to boost the economy in the short run." The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has also stated that as stimulus, allowing only the top tax cuts to expire "would be more cost-effective" than extending all of the cuts "because the higher-income households that would be excluded would probably save a larger fraction of their increase in after-tax income." Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman also said of extending the tax cuts for the wealthy: "it's hard to think of a less cost-effective way to help the economy."

Top earners would still gain from tax cuts

Wealthy taxpayers would still have lower taxes under Obama plan than if all the cuts expired as scheduled. The Times further reported that according to a Joint Committee on Taxation analysis, taxpayers with income over $250,000 would have a higher top tax rate, but would still benefit from the other "four lower rates on up to the first $250,000 of their income." For instance, "Filers with taxable income of $500,000 to $1 million would still get on average a tax cut of $6,700 compared with pre-2001 rates, according to the data from the tax analysts. But that compares with roughly $17,500 if the top Bush tax rates were maintained."

A tax calculator provided by National Public Radio demonstrates that if all the tax cuts were extended, a married couple earning $300,000 would pay $734 dollars less than under Obama's plan, a difference that represents 0.2 percent of the household's income. By contrast, if all the tax cuts were allowed to expire as scheduled, the household would pay $8,534 more than under Obama's plan. A said of Obama's decision against extending the tax cuts, "I'm wondering how much of this is legitimate economic planning, that the president truly believes this, or even, you know, Peter Orszag truly believes it, and how much of it is political in the sense trying to create almost political warfare, trying to divide the upper 2 percent from the rest of the population." She also said that eliminating the tax cuts for the top 2 percent is "almost a class warfare political weapon." Carlson responded:

CARLSON: Well, it's very flatly and plainly a question of class warfare. I mean, look, I'm hardly defending rich people. I'm not a rich person, unfortunately, though I aspire to that. They pay for everything in this country. The top 10 percent pays more than half of federal taxes. You take out rich people, and the country doesn't run. That's just a fact. That's not defense of a class or a social system, those are [...] numbers you can't debate.

Krauthammer: The "idea is class warfare." On the September 1 edition of Fox News' Special Report, responding to a question on whether Obama would "veto in a recession the extension of all the current tax rates for the next year," Charles Krauthammer said, "I think he will because that's all he's got. He can't argue his economic policies have succeeded. That's not anything anybody would believe. What the idea is class warfare. The Republicans are in favor of the rich and we are in favor of the middle class. That's all they have and they're going to stick to it." 

IBD: Pelosi, Reid, and Democratic majorities in Congress "are locked into their class warfare ideology." In an August 12 editorial, Investor's Business Daily stated: "Unfortunately, President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Democratic majorities in Congress are locked into their class warfare ideology. Allowing the job creators of the U.S. economy to keep their lowered tax rates would mean letting them keep close to $36 billion of their own money in 2011, and the party's base cannot stomach such thoughts."

WSJ blogger: Prepare for "more sad, divisive class warfare led by your president. In an August 11 Wall Street Journal blog post, Evan Newmark wrote that "After alienating most white Americans ... President Obama and his White House gang are launching a fresh 'pitchfork and torches' assault on Republicans and America's 'rich.' " Commenting on Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's statement that tax cuts for the wealthy should be allowed to expire, Newmark wrote, "This is the dry language you'd expect from a career bureaucrat. But beneath his arch tone is real class war demagoguery." He later stated that the Obama administration understands that by "jacking taxes on America's 2 million 'rich' " it will be difficult to "put them in the spending mood" and added, "and that's why it's back to class warfare."

NRO post: The "progressives' class-warfare gambit may backfire disastrously this November." In an August 10 National Review Online post headlined "The Class-Warfare Gambit," Michael G. Franc, vice president of government relations for the Heritage Foundation, claimed that Democrats are "plan[ning]" to "soak only the top-earning households in America" when the Bush tax cuts expire on January 1, 2011. He further wrote that "the politics of 'taxing the rich' may turn out to be more complex than Democratic strategists first envisioned. Indeed, the progressives' class-warfare gambit may backfire disastrously this November."

Armstrong Williams: "As if the race baiting by the White House weren't enough, it's now in full-throated class warfare." In an August 8 Washington Times "analysis/opinion" piece, after correctly observing that "the tax rate cuts that President George W. Bush and the Republican led-Congress pushed through in 2001 are set to expire" on January 1, 2011, conservative political commentator Armstrong Williams claimed that the Obama administration is "pondering tax increases" and accused the Obama administration of "full-throated class warfare, pitting this faceless rich no one seems to know against the poor, who seem to be on every corner in President Obama's mind."

LVRJ: "Mr. Obama's class warfare rhetoric and desire to expand the regulatory state only exacerbates" uncertainty on hiring. In an August 8 editorial, the Las Vegas Review-Journal wrote: "Indeed, many employers remain reluctant to expand -- perhaps either still smarting from the hit of the 2008 economic meltdown or worried about the direction this president has taken the economy. With the Bush tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year, thousands of business owners and potential entrepreneurs face an uncertain future. Mr. Obama's class warfare rhetoric and desire to expand the regulatory state only exacerbates the problem."

IBD: The "so-called progressive left ... has used class warfare to divide us." In an August 6 editorial, Investor's Business Daily wrote:

Instead of slashing spending, as common sense and economic reality would dictate, some want to let Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire. Those cuts were responsible for the economy's recovery from the triple whammy of the 1999-2000 stock market meltdown, the Y2K debacle and the 2001 recession.

At the same time, Americans will be hit with a blizzard of new regulations and higher taxes from this year's health-care and financial reform laws. That could sink the economy again.

The regulatory and tax siege has sent America's entrepreneurial, job and wealth-creating class reeling. The so-called progressive left now in charge of government has used class warfare to divide us -- always blaming the "rich" (anyone who earns more than $200,000), entrepreneurs and businesses for not doing enough.

Hannity: What "do you say to Democrats who play the class warfare card" and are willing to let the Bush tax cuts expire? During a July 30 interview with Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) on his Fox News show, Hannity said of the Bush tax cuts:

HANNITY: Yes, look, it's going to be interesting because the president obviously wants them to expire, especially for the wealthy. What do you say to democrats who play the class warfare card and say, no we'll just let them expire for, quote, "the wealthiest Americans," those who are making over $200,000 or more which by the way the top ten percent pay over 70 percent of the income taxes in this country. Why would you argue that's a bad idea?

Doocy: Democrats want to raise taxes on "those evil, successful people," "the so-called rich." On the July 27 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy claimed that Democrats say "those evil, successful people at the top 3 or 4 or 5 percent -- the so-called rich Americans -- we're going to continue to tax them at a higher rate." Doocy continued by suggesting that when you're talking about these "so-called rich Americans," "you're not talking about Donald Trump or a member of the Rockefeller family. You're talking about a lot of people who own and operate America's small businesses."

Thompson: Obama is "going to base this tax cut on rich versus poor." During a July 27 interview by Sean Hannity, former Senator Fred Thompson asserted: "People are not as susceptible to having their envy played upon as this administration thinks. They think that if they can do something, even if it hurts the economy, that's going to take something away from a group that they're not a part of, the 2 or 3 percent, the way they like to put it, that that will go over well politically and they can win that, you know. Rich versus poor." He added that the president is "going to base this tax argument on rich versus poor. Going to give everybody -- everybody in America a tax cut, in effect, or let the tax cuts remain for them, except just two or three percent of the people. That just happens to be a third of our consumers and produce most of our jobs."

Dick Morris, purporting to be an expert on the deficit from working in the Clinton White House, attacked President Obama for proposing to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire, claiming that "is just a method of increasing the deficit." In fact, extending tax cuts actually adds to the deficit.

Morris' economic FAIL: Letting tax cuts expire will increase the deficit 

Morris: Letting Bush tax cuts for wealthy to expire is "just a method of increasing the deficit." On the September 8 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Morris argued that not extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent in America "is just a method of increasing the deficit, increasing the debt." Morris contrasted Obama's position with that of former President Bill Clinton, who "understood that the solution to the recession was to cut the deficit."

In reality, extending the tax cuts will increase the deficit 

CBO estimates extending the Bush tax cuts for wealthiest Americans would cost $700 billion. According to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) budget:    

CBO scores "[d]effering the scheduled increases in tax rates" as the lowest-scoring policy proposal to stimulate economy. In a January 14 report on "Policies for Increasing Economic Growth and Employment in 2010 and 2011," CBO stated:

The report further stated that "a permanent extension [of the Bush tax cuts] would entail large revenue losses after the recovery is over."

According to a table in the report, CBO estimated that reducing income taxes in 2011 would have the  least stimulative effect of the policy options considered.